Hillary Clinton Wears Hijab in New Campaign Ad

Hillary’s latest campaign video tries to build up her non-existent foreign policy experience. That means making as much as possible out of her feminist speech in China… which avoided criticizing a Communist regime that forces women to have abortion. (Or as her Planned Parenthood pals call it, health care outreach.) And showing her travel photo slideshow.

It’s basically like those travel videos friends force you to watch… except this is a really expensive commercial and no one can force you to watch it.

Not only has the Hijab consistently been a source of Muslim violence against women, both in punishing women who don’t wear it and punishing women who take it off, but its origins lie in an Islamic commandment distinguishing Muslim women, who couldn’t be raped, from non-Muslim slave women captured by Mohammed’s rampaging gang.

The Koranic verse that mandates covering states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested” (Koran 33:59)

That’s not modesty. The covering is being worn to avoid rape.

The key words here are “distinguished and not molested”. Whom are these women being distinguished from? Women who don’t cover up and can be molested.

Hillary’s “cloak” is incomplete by Saudi or Taliban standards, but all these coverings are meant to be a symbolic form of Purdah, the physical confinement of a woman, even within her home.

In her commercial, Hillary Clinton, by wearing the Hijab, is advertising that she is the property of a man and therefore “not to be molested”. Of course since Islamic law doesn’t recognize the marriages of non-Muslim peoples it is at war with, enabling Jihadis to sexually assault even married non-Muslim women, as the Islamic prophet Mohammed allowed his Muslim followers to do, it’s also a meaningless gesture.

Is it really a feminist gesture to voluntarily accept the Islamic distinction between women who can be assaulted and women who can’t?

Either way it’s certainly a step back for a female politician who wants to be seen as a leader and a fighter for women.